- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:25:41 -0600
- To: "w3c WAI List" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF0A670E0E.D65EC4DF-ON86257DA9.0061E280-86257DA9.00653DE7@us.ibm.com>
My recommendation: I recommend a center of competency (e.g. W3C WAI Evaluation & Repair Working Group) maintain a matrix like table of contents or cross-referenced searchable index to document the current and future status for which accessibility test tools on which platforms for each WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. There are at least two approaches to display this reference - By WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria: this is what tools are available for each Success Criteria by platform and by browser; versus the by platform view: this is the set of platforms and browsers an enterprise may have already established, what is the status of accessibility tools? A screen reader is just one tool set but covers a major set of the 38 Level A and Double AA Success Criteria. The automated checker tool(s) is a second set of tools. Color Contrast Analyzers and other browser toolbar plug-ins are a third set of tools and often only cover a single or smaller set of Success Criteria. Context: Often we accessibility practitioners get engaged about the question: "what is the standard set of tools we should use to validate accessibility?" and we get engaged to deliver courses that include training on tools for designers, developers, and testers. How can the enterprise be enables? The budget for tools and training is often a strong consideration in establishing the "standard tool set". The browser and platform standards at an organization is another strong consideration for establishing the standard tool set, e.g. we hear a government agency say: "but we have to test on IE 9, our standard desktop browser", or the bank will say, "it has to run on Firefox ESR", etc. The other strong consideration is the chosen standard set of platforms; iOS 8, Android 5.0, Windows 7, ChromeOS 40, etc. Note: I am NOT talking about the accessibility capital S Standard - based on WCAG 2.0, but I'm talking about the lower case standard set of browser, platforms and tools that an enterprise or project standardizes on . . . The WCAG working group alluded to this as the "accessibility supported" discussion: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head Examples: Some organizations and tool vendors explain how to use various tools, but only includes some of the tools that have been decided upon to be standardize on based on some set of browsers and platform assumptions. As new browsers and platforms are now no longer "emerging", but somewhat established with various levels of ARIA support for example; what is the current status and possibility for standardizing on them? I believe this "research and documentation" should be a responsibility of WAI, just like the implementation techniques are documented - agreement? I need a reference to review if any of these screen readers are possible for establishing a "standard set" for accessibility verification test (AVT) - and of course why and why not? NVDA on Windows 7 with IE browser? ChromeVox on Windows 7 with the Chrome browser? ChromeVox on MacOS with the Chrome browser - or should Safari with VoiceOver be the standard, does it matter, why? Talkback on Android 5.0 with the _________ browser? We can't test on every tool, every platform, and every browser combination, so which set is the "best set" for a project's standard set? We need references documented. We need to know what is being worked on and which tools are being researched? There is a great set of questions and criteria with which to make decisions, but there is no summarized referenced data by tool - we need the "answers" too. see http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools.html So when Jen and others ask the question: which tools? we can point them to a resource just like we can point developers to the techniques resources. The list of tools at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/index.html needs to cross-indexed by platform, by Success Criteria, by browser, and by content technology to be more useful. ____________________________________________ Regards, Phill Jenkins, IBM Accessibility http://www.ibm.com/able http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility http://twitter.com/IBMAccess http://www.linkedin.com/in/philljenkins From: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com> To: Jens Oliver Meiert <jens@meiert.com>, W3C WAI IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Date: 12/09/2014 09:33 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Accessibility tools Hi Jens (all)-- I use different tools depending on the browser (most common shown by *): IE: *Web Accessibility Toolbar, *WAVE Firefox: FAE, Web Developer Toolbar, WAVE, Juicy Studio Accessibility plug-ins Chrome: Web Developer Toolbar Screenreaders: *JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver and ChromeVox Hope that helps! Mike On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 10:10 AM, Jens Oliver Meiert <jens@meiert.com> wrote: Forwarding per suggestion from Andrew?cheers! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jens Oliver Meiert <jens@meiert.com> Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM Subject: Accessibility tools To: W3C WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> An informal question, what accessibility tools do people here trust most these days? I?m reviewing the accessibility section of UITest.com and am not sure it?s up-to-date. (Direct feedback okay if you happen to run any tools you like to see listed there, or if you have any general feedback.) -- Jens Oliver Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 18:26:15 UTC